On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:09:03PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 25.02.11 13:35, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote:
On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
Commit
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c
2b53a3ca8c2fa
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:04, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:09:03PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 25.02.11 13:35, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote:
On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
Commit
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:18:16PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:04, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote:
Hmmm ... AFAIK we do. If things do not work, then it has to be fixed
as we have users/customers around definitely use this feature.
I doubt anybody will be
On Mon, 07.03.11 16:04, Dr. Werner Fink (wer...@suse.de) wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:09:03PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Fri, 25.02.11 13:35, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote:
On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
Commit
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:50:16PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:44, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote:
Those customers have payed for support including this feature
and some of them exactly for this feature. I'm not going to
ignore this hard requirement for
On Mon, 07.03.11 16:44, Dr. Werner Fink (wer...@suse.de) wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:18:16PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:04, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote:
Hmmm ... AFAIK we do. If things do not work, then it has to be fixed
as we have
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 17:14, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:50:16PM +0100, Kay Sievers wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 16:44, Dr. Werner Fink wer...@suse.de wrote:
Those customers have payed for support including this feature
and some of them exactly for
On Mon, 07.03.11 17:14, Dr. Werner Fink (wer...@suse.de) wrote:
It has to be possible to fulfill FHS not only in theory but
in practice. That is that if an network interface has to up
for the NFS share /usr then systemd should support this.
The 1000ths time: it has nothing to do
]] Lennart Poettering
Hi,
| But it's a promise you are making there that you cannot keep. If you
| want to support /usr on a separate partition then you'd need to do all
| the work and move the PCI and USB databases to /, move libatasmart,
| fix udisks, fix D-Bus and so on.
I leave that to
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 06:45:21PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 03.03.11 17:58, Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) wrote:
]] Lennart Poettering
| To boot a system, enough must be present on the root partition to
| mount other filesystems. This includes utilities,
On Thu, 03.03.11 19:42, Tollef Fog Heen (tfh...@err.no) wrote:
]] Tomasz Torcz
| I don't get it. What during the boot (before /usr is mounted) require
pci.db,
| usb ids, why udisks would be started?
udev rules that reference the name rather than the USB/PCI vendor or
product ID is
On Thu, 03.03.11 19:21, Tomasz Torcz (to...@pipebreaker.pl) wrote:
But it's a promise you are making there that you cannot keep. If you
want to support /usr on a separate partition then you'd need to do all
the work and move the PCI and USB databases to /, move libatasmart,
fix udisks,
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 05:39:03PM -0300, Pablo Hess wrote:
Not supporting a separate /usr would be a major setback for systemd, IMO.
Separate /usr has nothing to do with systemd. It just the way current
distribution
work. Systemd is just a messenger, don't shot it because of friendly
On Thu, 03.03.11 17:39, Pablo Hess (natunobi...@gentoobr.org) wrote:
Would it work better if /usr was an automounted target?
That would probably blow up in your face, since a lot of programs used
during early boot end up accessing /usr and would stay stuck
Aren't /usr/bin and
On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:51:52PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Why? systemd just warns you. systemd itself works fine with sperate
/usr. It's just a statement on the general ecosystem, a statement of
fact on the status quo.
systemd is just the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger.
If
On Fri, 25.02.11 13:35, Adam Spragg (a...@spra.gg) wrote:
On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
Commit
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c
2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason
for it?
This
On Fri, 25.02.11 16:00, Andrey Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
Commit
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c2b53a3ca8c2fa
declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason for it?
It's just acknowledgment of the status quo. And most
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:23:27PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new
policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups
like this will break. End of story.
Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes?
On Friday 25 Feb 2011 13:00:51 Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
Commit
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/commit/?id=80758717a6359cbe6048f43a17c
2b53a3ca8c2fa declared separate /usr unsupported. What is really the reason
for it?
This does seem odd. Might I also point out...
From
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 01:35:14PM +, Adam Spragg wrote:
Are there any bug reports that lead to this decision?
No idea, but given that there are probably a fair few systems out there which
currently have a separate /usr, I predict quite a few bug reports because of
this change...
Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:23:27PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new
policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups
like this will break. End of story.
Kay Sievers (kay.siev...@vrfy.org) said:
Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new
policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups
like this will break. End of story.
Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes?
Speaking as a
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 20:12, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Kay Sievers (kay.siev...@vrfy.org) said:
Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new
policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user that setups
like this will break. End of
2011/2/25 Kay Sievers kay.siev...@vrfy.org:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 20:12, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Kay Sievers (kay.siev...@vrfy.org) said:
Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new
policy we came up with here. It's just a warning to the user
On Fri, 25.02.11 13:09, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:23:27PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, it hasn't been working correctly in ages. It's really not new
policy we came up with here. It's just a
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:41:11PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
really no good reason to split it off anyway. Folks who want to do ro
/usr are aiming too low, they should go for ro /.
As I noted on the fedora-devel list, that's actually a functional reason for
wanting a separate /usr:
It'd
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 08:37:47PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Is this flagged for the Fedora 15 release notes?
Why would it? It's just a statement of fact, as a warning. Thinks like
Because to my knowledge it's never been said before, and if the project
wants to draw a line in the sand
27 matches
Mail list logo
